Historian, Former Ambassador, Human Rights Activist

My own view is that those who have adopted religous fanaticism – for whatever religion – display an absence of good judgement.

Ed Husain is by his own account a former religous extremist. He is one of the leaders among those who realised that, having tried to make a mark in the world through religious fanaticism, they can make more money and career progress by turning traitor on their former beliefs and colleagues, and jumping on the anti-Islamist gravy train.

Both the original fanaticism and the high profile and lucrative betrayal are evidence of a sociopathic character.

Husain is now a wealthy man. The government set him up in the Quilliam foundation and has thrown more than £1 million of taxpayers’ money at it. He is in great and lucrative demand on the mainstream media.

The Quilliam Foundation is the branch of New Labour tasked with securing the Muslim vote and reducing British Muslim dissatisfaction with New Labour over the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. If they wanted to do that whith New Labour money, that would be their own business. But I object fundamentally to their doing it with my and your money.

The party political nature of the Quilliam Foundation is shown in their astonishing and completely unbalanced attack on Osama Saeed, a prominent SNP candidate and a friend of mine. They try to portray him as an Islamic extremist.

If Osama is an Islamic extremist, then I am a Blairite.

For New Labour to have even the faintest hope of a respectable performance at the general election, they must protect their Scottish base against the SNP. This pathetic attempt to smear the SNP as connected to Islamic extremism is a blatant abuse of taxpayers’ money.

It is also desperate. Here is one of the “extremist” comments of Osama which they highlight:

“The aim of Islamic law, contrary to popular belief, is not punishment by death or amputation of body parts. It is to create a peaceful and just society, with Islamic scholars over centuries citing its core aims: the freedom to practise religion; protection of life; safeguarding intellect; maintaining lineage and individual rights. This could be the basis for an Islamic Bill of Rights.”

They also criticisng Osama for saying the “Danish cartoons” should be banned. I disagree with Osama on that one, but I also disagree with Nadira and every other Muslim I know on that one. Freedom of speech, sadly in my view, is not absolute in this country – witness the government’s banning of Geerst Wilders. Osama’s view on this is not extreme, it is mainstream.

The real scandal here is not Osama Saeed, who is a good man dedicated to freedom and to bringing Scotland’s Muslim community into its mainstream politics. The real story is the blatant misuse of taxpayer funds by New Labour.

This reminds me of the Cold War period – set up a front-organisation and use it to smear your opponents. New Labour have just been caught red-handed trying to smear Tory politicians and as they can’t now smear SNP politicians directly they get their Quilliam front to do it for them. I wonder who is next?

I would like to know what Usama’s views and that of the SNP generally are on Gaelic and the Gaidhealtachd rather than what I would consider his sensible and unobjectionable ones on Shariah.

As for the “Cartoons Affair”, Geerd Wilders, and the like as I understand it the UK Muslim communities are quite divided on these so it would be unfair to lump them all together.

As a Celt, however, I really do object to the abuse of William Quilliam’s name, and by association his activities during the latter part of the 19th Century, for this dodgy organisation with not only NeoLabour apparatchiki running it but the unBritish enthusiasts for the views of Henry Martin Jackson and self-confessed NeoCons like the man Gove as its “advisors”.

“My own view is that those who have adopted religous fanaticism – for whatever religion – display an absence of good judgement. … Both the original fanaticism and the high profile and lucrative betrayal are evidence of a sociopathic character.”

I encourage people to read Bob Altemeyer’s book “The Authoritarians”, which gives insight, backed by empirical data, into the mindsets of religious fanatics.

“OK, fine. Do you know how your moderate Muslim friend would answer the question, “Do you believe that the JewisH people should be able to exist as a Nation State?””

How would a Jew answer the question “Do you believe that the Aryan people should be able to exist as a Nation State?”

Israel was established where there was a pre-existing non-Jewish majority. The establishment of a Jewish state required that these people get fucked over – and in 1948 some 700,000 arabs were “ethnically cleansed” from what became Israel. Around 80% of modern Gazans are there descendants. Sderot was once a Palestinian town. Israel in 1967 established apartheid in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, and it continues to ethnically cleanse Jerusalem of Palestinians.

I honestly think this government is not after Muslim votes, but after anti Muslim votes, thats why it supports Ed Hussain and goes from one attack on Muslims to another.

This week we had an attack on Islam by Blair, who called to fight Islam the way we fought communism, then we had the government cutting funds to MCB because they didn’t sack Dawood Abdullah

Ed Hussain is another copy of Hassan Butt, the ex extremist who was a celebrity before he was exposed as a compulsive liar. He has no credibility within Muslims and his name frequently appears on Islamophobia watch website. Those who finance him are not buying Muslim votes and I don’t think they have been conned to believe so.

I’m very much against the cartoons and Wilders, this freedom to offend not freedom of expression, these disgraceful actions designed to offend!!

“I honestly think this government is not after Muslim votes, but after anti Muslim votes, thats why it supports Ed Hussain and goes from one attack on Muslims to another.”

Yes indeed….

……and for using the people Husein turns into infiltrators to help the security services stay in total control of the “War on Terror”.

One thing about religious fanaticism though……yes, people who fanatically adopt political positions as laid down by extreme religious authorities and are prepared to enforce their ‘religion’ on society by violence……are very dangerous….

…..but people who take the spiritual teachings of their religion (the teachings of Christ from the New Testament, for instance) extremely seriously might justifiably be called ‘fanatics’ (They are compared to everyone else around them)….

…..but these people are often the most peace-loving and inspiring figures alive. One would like also to say ‘unifying’ figures but for Christ, the truth had to be told even though it hurt.

Indeed many would argue that people who do not project these benign qualities are not religious at all.

…so take care with the ‘anti-religion’ thing.

Christianity and Islam are under attack in the media, the political sphere and in the education system. Other religions seem to escape such hostile scrutiny….

…but be careful when you ditch the whole ‘religion thing’, that you are not seduced into adopting another religion…..

…..state-sponsored secular rationalism.

I’d much rather believe in the imperatives delivered by an all-loving God and trust my instincts to interpret them than submit to the state’s version of morality….which, if you examine it closely, ultimately serves only the interests of the powerful.

Disraeli said it.

Governmental policies always have two strands, a public pretext (that’s the faux-morality that is used to sell us a policy) and a real motive, which is often quite different.

Nikola Tesla (the inventor of the system that delivers mains electricity to us and much more besides) also said it.

” Men mostly have two reasons for anything they do. A good reason and the real reason.”

In a free society there is not and cannot be a “right” not to be offended. Being offended is in any event a choice, and how one responds to offence is also a choice.

Mostly it is wisest to ignore offensiveness, and not to blow it up into a public brawl. Whatever your religion, or non-religion, if you are unwilling to live and let live you are not supporting an open and tolerant society. What troubles many non-Muslims who have no wish to offend their Muslim neighbours is that they are not convinced Islam is compatible with an open and tolerant society.

I confess I have never heard of this character and know or care little about scottish politics other than to be instinctively distrustful of salmond’s small minded nationalism, but this looks like old news from last year. See link below. The man looks like a curate’s egg, good and bad, but if it is true that he supports islamic schools and the caliphate then Quilliam are right to attack him. All schools based on faith should be immediately abolished.

Could you expand upon your reference to “salmond’s small minded nationalism”? The nationalism I have seen in Alex Salmond & Co is of the civic and internationalist form. There is nothing “small minded” about it.

I don’t believe its New Labour who is really behind the support of ant-Islamic (not just Islamist) project the Quilliam Foundation. I dont think they want to gain the ‘Muslim vote’ through the Quilliam Foundation. I think Labour knows full well it is alienating the Muslims OR it is completely ignorant of the Muslim community.

Either way, it is only doing one thing, it is giving fuel to the extremists who are now saying ‘see we told you so, the government is now backing a anti-Muslim project to demonise Muslims and Islam’.

I think the British government is deliberately creating mass hysteria around Muslims and is on a war path with mainstream Islam.

I don’t think I could agree less. Nu labour have done nothing but appease muslims since 9/11 in order to discourage them from blowing stuff up. And what’s this “muslim community” I keep hearing about? Is that like the “footballing community” or the “hairdressing community”? How about lots of money being poured into the “gardening community” to keep it sweet. Oh, I forgot, extremist gardeners don’t throw tantrums and start blowing stuff up if they don’t get their own way.

the clue is in the title Scottish NATIONAL Party. Can you imagine an Enlgish National Party? There would be riots. It’s evidence of the Scottish inferiority complex. I’ve seen no evidence that Salmond is an internationalist – he’s a nasty character to work for by all accounts. Saaed refers to the hairdryer treatment.

Sad isn’t it – but Scottish politics doesn’t interest me. If they want to be independent I just wish they would get on with it and stop spongeing off England. I’m happy to be put in the picture on Salmond’s internationalism – as I say, I’ve seen no evidence of it, other than a dislike of England and the English. I’ve been to Scotland a few times (climbed Ben Nevis twice) and it rains a lot and the people are generally unhealthy. There also seems to be a disproportionate number of them in England.

New Labour is completely ignorant of almost everything, and certainly of Islam and its adherents in the UK. What else can you expect, with a person like Hazel Blears, who cannot even remember where her “second home” is from one month to the next, as Communities Secretary?